All have sinned.. including Mary.

[LutheranDK]

Does your common sense tell you that infants, babies, toddler and the severely retarded can sin? If so, what is your understanding of sin? What elements are needed to constitute a sin? As a Lutheran, you don’t believe in two kins of sin (mortal/venial), correct? If you don’t believe in two kinds of sin, what do you make of this passage?: 1 John 5:16-17 “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”

What “common sense” (in this case, aka “the old Adam”) tells me is utterly irrelevant.
Sin is not just wrong actions. Original sin stains all humans - from the moment of conception till the moment of death. The difference between.
Now, in baptism, ALL of the conscious sins of the individual are forgiven - from birth to death - and he or she is fully righteous, although “the old Adam” still has influence. The Christian is, therefore, simul iustus et peccator.

I know that was not what you asked, but it needed to be said.
Now, I assume that we agree that sin is not just the ACT, but also the THOUGHT? That thinking of committing murder, or slandering, or lust, etc, is also sin?
Now, we know that consciousness is one of the very first things that the little human develops. At least there’s plenty of brain activity in the womb - and children as young as 5 months (id est: still in the womb) have been proven to experience REM-sleep.

What point am I making?
That even the unborn think - albeit in a VERY different way than how you or I think. Why is this important? Because EVERY FIBRE of our being is contaminated with original sin. Every thought, every deed (but babies have not yet committed “deeds”), EVERYTHING is stained by sin. If not some selfish motive that none can see, then original sin. And original sin is the mother of all sins. We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. And sin is not only deed, it is also thought, intend, indeed the very core of us is sin.

That small children (I don’t really know when you want to draw the line? At 1? 2? 4? 6? etc?) are sinners is apparent to anyone who deals with them.
Am I saying that small children are bad persons?
No. I am saying that they are sinners.

The same with mentally retarded. Because they are human, they are sinners. Period. It does not matter if they have the mental capacity of a 3-year old, because they are still stained with original sin, and therefore inherently enemies of God.
This does NOT make them “bad persons” in the sense that word is normally used; it makes them sinners who are enemies of God, just as surely as Hitler or Stalin was, although they have committed none of the deeds, or thought none of the thoughts, of the beforementioned.

About the passage from 1. John.
There are two understandings that I know of:

1: The “sin that is unto death” is to be taken literally, which means that the sin that leads to death is a sin that results in the death of the sinner - and it would therefore make no sense to pray for the sinner (since he/she is dead).

2: The sin that leads to death is the one sin that puts men outside of the Kingdom of God: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as we learn in Matthew (I believe?).
And THAT is to be understood, from a contextual reading of the rest of Scripture, as denying the WORK of the Holy Spirit, and His OFFICE.
Which would mean that an Arian have committed the sin that leads to death (because of his rejection of the Trinity), but not that an unbeliever who has spoken blasphemy against the person of the Holy Spirit.

Which one I lean towards, I am not really sure. One thing I AM sure of, though, from the rest of Scripture is that the Roman interpretation is unreasonable.

 

[LutheranDK]

Personally I expect the answer to come from his teachers at the theology school he is atending.

Makes me smile… one of my 6 daughters-in-law is Lutheran, and she often calls herself Catholic Lite. I usually just smile, and say “…I know, Ang, but until, and if, the lite comes on, you are still in the dark…and God is there with you.”

LOL - like your answers come from your sunday school teacher or priest?
Nothing wrong in asking those with greater knowledge than oneself.
And at least, I won’t just uncritically post whatever answer I am given, if that be my modus operandi, without any other reason than “because we say so!” like papists do

To say that being Roman is being in the light is like saying that turning off the lamp illuminates a room.

 

[elvisman]

The Ten Commandments are not God. The Bible being God’s Word is not God either.
John’s use of the name Word (Logos) to identify Jesus does not make Jesus anywhere near the same thing as words, even if they are God’s words on stone tablets that He wrote Himself.
(2Samuel 6:2) speaks of the Ark where God is described as dwelling between the cherubims, not inside of the Ark, which is necessary for the symbolism you put forth to have a reasonable “correctness” to it.

Ahhhh . . . . yet another rationalization. Boy, to be Protestant, you really have to be full of rationalizations.
Jesus is INDEED the Word of God incarnate. To say otherwise is not only heresy - it goes against the teachings of just about every Protestant denomination.

The Ten Commandments aren’t God - never said they were. I said they were God’s Word - God’s Law. I also said that the manna contained in the Ark is a prefigurement of the Eucharist - of Jesus HIMSELF - as indicated by Jesus HIMSELF (6:31-33).

I have already put forth this information several times while dialoging with NDfan in previous pages. Please read the previous posts BEFORE arguing your point.

 

[MrS]

LOL - like your answers come from your sunday school teacher or priest?
Nothing wrong in asking those with greater knowledge than oneself.
And at least, I won’t just uncritically post whatever answer I am given, if that be my modus operandi, without any other reason than “because we say so!” like papists do

To say that being Roman is being in the light is like saying that turning off the lamp illuminates a room.

Okay, here we go. I baited you, and you responded. I can overlook your evident bitterness or distain for the Church founded 2000 years ago.

First, my answers come only if they are Christ centered (although I do still mess up on occasion). The whole existence of the Catholic Church, and the divine authority it alone possesses, is to point to Christ, and brings others to Him.

So yes, we should all seek knowledge from those with greater knowledge.

We have them…
the Apostles and the Tradition they safeguared from Pentecost on…
the Early Church Fathers who passed on the understandings and truths …
the Scriptures which record much of the Tradition, and which came without help from reformers or others outside the Catholic Church…
and the continuing knowledge from the Magisterium which alone can bind and loose, which alone can speak infallibly when necessary, and which alone can insure us that the gates of hell will not prevail

Perhaps your professors will instruct you that there is a Catholic Church they stand in opposition to… not a “roman” church, which actually is none-existent. If they don’t even teach you that, how is it that they are of greater knowledge?

Only Peter was given the authority to bind and loose, to pass on his authority, and to feed HIS sheep.

You should be listening to the true greater knowledge - the successor to Peter, and the successors to the Apostles who are the Bishops in union with the Pope…who speaks to all Christians, including you. You will have to learn to live with it.

Thanks for replying.

 

[NDfan]

**Ahhhh . . . . yet another **rationalization. Boy, to be Protestant, you really have to be full of rationalizations.
Jesus is INDEED the Word of God incarnate. To say otherwise is not only heresy - it goes against the teachings of just about every Protestant denomination.

**The Ten Commandments aren’t God - never **said they were. I said they were God’s Word - God’s Law. I also said that the manna contained in the Ark is a prefigurement of the Eucharist - of Jesus HIMSELF - as indicated by Jesus HIMSELF (6:31-33).

I have already put forth this information several times while dialoging with NDfan in previous pages. Please read the previous posts BEFORE arguing your point.

Elvis how are you today my brother? I thought alot about our conversation last night and went back through some old notes. Here’s something we can throw some dialogue into.

Your claim with regard to Mary needing to be sinless is so that the stain of original sin will not pass to Jesus. Consider this. Let’s take the example of the person Jesus cured of leprosey in Matthew. Now in the book of Numbers we know that a leper could not be among the people because touching a leper would defile you. If we look at how Jesus healed the leper it was done by HIS touch. When Jesus touched the leper did HE become defiled? No why? Because Jesus basically cleansed the leper of his disease. The same can be said for any person that Jesus healed by touch whether it be the blind man, the demon possessed man, the woman who bled etc. etc. Now if we consider what the root is of all sickness we know it’s from sin. The sting of sin is death.

So just as Jesus could not have been defiled by the leper or the demon possessed man or anyone who was sick with sin, the same could be said for when HE was in Mary’s womb. The stain of sin could not touch Jesus because HE would have cleansed it. Perhaps we have it right that Mary was sinless but not because she was preserved at conception. It was because Jesus cleansed her of her sin when HE was in her womb at the time of conception. Now the question remains, did Mary sin after Jesus was born? We could ask the same thing of the leper and all those healed by Jesus. In many cases Jesus says “your Faith has made you well, go and sin no more”. Could the same be said of Mary? That her Faith made her well and she sinned no more?

What do you think brother?

PEACE

 

[Good_Fella]

Actually, you are confirming my point here.

When God was in the womb of Mary, was He is in an incubator that had no relevance to His Person? No, the hypostasis is dependent on God being fully human. Therefore, it is not, as you suggest, a situation where God must be “preserved” from the sin of His mother, as if His nature was fully formed and simply used the body of His mother as a vehicle to come to earth. As if He inherited only her skin and eyes, but nothing else from her.

But that is really is what you are arguing. You are arguing that Mary’s sinfulness was irrelevant because God is holy. Right. So what does that imply? Does that imply that He tolerated her sinfulness, and “preserved” Himself from it? Or does it imply that by logical necessity anything that God is joined to is pure, and redeemed? Does it not imply that for God to become one flesh with Mary, she must have been first cleansed from sin? God did not wrap himself in saran wrap, He purified His bride, the Church, who become one with Christ, of whom Mary is the first member.

Jesus inherited His soul from His mother, not simply His body, because the soul is human.He inherited every aspect of His person. To draw from that person, it must have been an untainted personhood.

And once again, being untainted, and without sin, is NOT the equivalent of divinity This is the biggest misunderstanding of Protestantism.

Monophysitism is prevalent in Protestantism - a 16th century heresy.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[LutheranDK]

Jesus is INDEED the Word of God incarnate. To say otherwise is not only heresy - it goes against the teachings of just about every Protestant denomination.

Not “just about” every protestant denomination: EVERY protestant denomination.

 

[elvisman]

Not “just about” every protestant denomination: EVERY protestant denomination.

**I stand humbly corrected! **:bowdown:

 

[elvisman]

Elvis how are you today my brother? I thought alot about our conversation last night and went back through some old notes. Here’s something we can throw some dialogue into.

Your claim with regard to Mary needing to be sinless is so that the stain of original sin will not pass to Jesus. Consider this. Let’s take the example of the person Jesus cured of leprosey in Matthew. Now in the book of Numbers we know that a leper could not be among the people because touching a leper would defile you. If we look at how Jesus healed the leper it was done by HIS touch. When Jesus touched the leper did HE become defiled? No why? Because Jesus basically cleansed the leper of his disease. The same can be said for any person that Jesus healed by touch whether it be the blind man, the demon possessed man, the woman who bled etc. etc. Now if we consider what the root is of all sickness we know it’s from sin. The sting of sin is death.

So just as Jesus could not have been defiled by the leper or the demon possessed man or anyone who was sick with sin, the same could be said for when HE was in Mary’s womb. The stain of sin could not touch Jesus because HE would have cleansed it. Perhaps we have it right that Mary was sinless but not because she was preserved at conception. It was because Jesus cleansed her of her sin when HE was in her womb at the time of conception. Now the question remains, did Mary sin after Jesus was born? We could ask the same thing of the leper and all those healed by Jesus. In many cases Jesus says “your Faith has made you well, go and sin no more”. Could the same be said of Mary? That her Faith made her well and she sinned no more?

What do you think brother?

PEACE

Peace, my brother-from-another-mother!
The only thing I have to say about that is - I never said that Mary being born with original sin (if she has been born with it) would pass onto Jesus. I think that was somebody else’s assertion.
**She couldn’t defile God even if she wanted to. Remember what happened to Uzzah when he touched the Ark in 2 Sam. 6:6-7? He was struck dead.

My whole point was that she was prefigured by the Ark of the covenant and she had to be pure - without sin. Whereas the Ark carried symbols of God within it, she was actually carrying God himself (Luke 1:43).

(PS - I’m a huge ND Football fan!)

 

[LutheranDK]

Okay, here we go. I baited you, and you responded. I can overlook your evident bitterness or distain for the Church founded 2000 years ago.

First, my answers come only if they are Christ centered (although I do still mess up on occasion). The whole existence of the Catholic Church, and the divine authority it alone possesses, is to point to Christ, and brings others to Him.

So yes, we should all seek knowledge from those with greater knowledge.

We have them…
the Apostles and the Tradition they safeguared from Pentecost on…
the Early Church Fathers who passed on the understandings and truths …
the Scriptures which record much of the Tradition, and which came without help from reformers or others outside the Catholic Church…
and the continuing knowledge from the Magisterium which alone can bind and loose, which alone can speak infallibly when necessary, and which alone can insure us that the gates of hell will not prevail

Perhaps your professors will instruct you that there is a Catholic Church they stand in opposition to… not a “roman” church, which actually is none-existent. If they don’t even teach you that, how is it that they are of greater knowledge?

Only Peter was given the authority to bind and loose, to pass on his authority, and to feed HIS sheep.

You should be listening to the true greater knowledge - the successor to Peter, and the successors to the Apostles who are the Bishops in union with the Pope…who speaks to all Christians, including you. You will have to learn to live with it.

Thanks for replying.

First of all - I am not bitter against the Roman church. If I were, I wouldn’t be here. You gave me a verbal slap in the face, and I responded less charitable than I should’ve.
Now that we’re on the subject - how charitable is it to bait people?

Not much of what happens in the Roman church seems to be Christ-centrered. Yes, Peter-centered, Mary-centrered, saints-centrered, yes. But not Christ-centrered. Christ seems to have been lost in scholastic philosophy…

I use the term “Roman” instead of “Catholic”, not because of malice or bitterness, but because I do not accept the Roman church’s claim of being identical to the Catholic church. The meaning of the word “katholikos” is “universal” → emcompassing ALL believers, not only those from any one denomination.

That I am in opposition to the Roman church, there can be no doubt about. I have not said anything else, nor have we been taught anything else.

That post of yours might have scored high on the CA “apologetics” scale - but methinks this is mostly based on the repetition of “accepted” truths within the Roman church.
There is NO reasoning whatsoever - just plain statements.

And that is what I have found that Roman apologetics are mostly about: Repetition of statements without reasoning…and when there IS reasoning - it is circular more often than not.

But one question I have not yet recieved a good answer to:
Since y’all seem to think that Matt 16:18 is to be understood literally, what do you make of Matt 16:23? Is that also to be understood literally? Or is it somehow different all of a sudden?

And even IF (and mind you: I am not conceeding that it is the case!) Matt 16:18 WAS meant literally, and that the person of Peter WAS the rock on which the true church should be build, the idea of the papacy does not follow.

If you can give good, biblical reasons for your views, then please go ahead. If not, I think we should let this matter end here (except that I WOULD like an answer to the above question in any case…)

 

[estesbob]

Not “just about” every protestant denomination: EVERY protestant denomination.

I am curious-the Spirit tells you one thing and tells me another. How do we resolve this?

 

[Faith5]

Christ received physical humanity, mortal as it was, via Mary. And therein is a strong proof of Mary’s sharing (even in her motherhood) in the fallen state of man. It seems to me that If she had not received original sin then she would have been born immortal. Yet, precisely because she was born of Adam, born of an earthly father, she was mortal and sinful

However, Christ, though mortal, did not receive a corrupt spiritual nature from her. Not because she had no sin, but because she had known no man. The passing of the stain of sin comes from the father. And this is a strong proof thereof. Christ was born of a virgin so that he could partake in the fallen nature of the body without receiving the stain of sin on the soul.

Thus I conclude Mary had to be born in sin, and continue in that state even in her motherhood, in order for Christ to receive from her mortality.

Unless, one is arguing she also had no earthly father, I fail to see how it can be otherwise, given the universal condition of all men born of Adam.

 

[NDfan]

Peace, my brother-from-another-mother!

The only thing I have to say about that is - I never said that Mary being born with original sin (if she has been born with it) would pass onto Jesus. I think that was somebody else’s assertion.
**She *couldn’t ***defile God even if she wanted to. Remember what happened to Uzzah when he touched the Ark in 2 Sam. 6:6-7? He was struck dead.

Exactly. Excellent point. I thought this was the “official” position of the Roman Catholic church though. Or is the official teaching that she prefigured the Ark?

My whole point was that she was prefigured by the Ark of the covenant and she had to be pure - without sin. Whereas the Ark carried symbols of God within it, she was actually carrying God himself (Luke 1:43).

I definitely see your point here. I guess I look more at her womb in comparison to the Ark as being pure and undefiled by any man. But I like your commentary as well.

(PS - I’m a huge ND Football fan!)

Well let’s hope they can do better this fall. Last season was just dismal Weis just didn’t seem to be as fired up like he was the first season.

PEACE brother

 

[LutheranDK]

I am curious-the Spirit tells you one thing and tells me another. How do we resolve this?

I’m not sure that I follow?

It is a fact that ALL Protestant denominations accept the incarnation, and that Jesus is in fact God incarnate.

 

[Faith5]

Christ received physical humanity, mortal as it was, via Mary. And therein is a strong proof of Mary’s sharing (even in her motherhood) in the fallen state of man. It seems to me that If she had not received original sin then she would have been born immortal. Yet, precisely because she was born of Adam, born of an earthly father, she was mortal and sinful

However, Christ, though mortal, did not receive a corrupt spiritual nature from her. Not because she had no sin, but because she had known no man. The passing of the stain of sin comes from the father. And this is a strong proof thereof. Christ was born of a virgin so that he could partake in the fallen nature of the body without receiving the stain of sin on the soul.

Thus I conclude Mary had to be born in sin, and continue in that state even in her motherhood, in order for Christ to receive from her mortality.

Unless, one is arguing she also had no earthly father, I fail to see how it can be otherwise, given the universal condition of all men born of Adam.

Here is the way I see it. Christ did not partake of the corrupt spiritual nature of Mary because Mary had none to give.
I believe the Father blessed Mary more than any other person.
In Genesis the serpent is the devil who is the father of lies.
His defeat is implied because of the contrast between the
head and the heal -in Genesis. Later in history the Son of God
appears so he would destroy the works of the devil. This is God’s
promise to save us! So the woman’s offspring is basically
Jesus.
All of us are aware of sinful flesh mentioned in the Bible.
However the Bible also states in John 1 vs. 14, “and the Word
became flesh.” Jesus did not receive a sinful flesh from Mary.
Catholics are correct in honoring Mary with the Dogma of
Immaculate Conception.

 

[estesbob]

I’m not sure that I follow?

It is a fact that ALL Protestant denominations accept the incarnation, and that Jesus is in fact God incarnate.

But there is disagreemtn on the Trinity, the nature of the Eucharist, the number and nature of the Sacraments, what is necessary for salvation just to name a few. How do we reslove this? All claim to be led by the Spirit . Is the Spirit the author of confusion?

 

[NDfan]

Here is the way I see it. Christ did not partake of the corrupt spiritual nature of Mary because Mary had none to give.

Christ did not partake in the corrupt spirit of Mary because Christ cannot be corrupted. Remember what happened when Christ touched the leper, the bleeding woman, the blind man, the man who was demon possessed etc. etc. etc. Did Christ become defiled as a result of this? Absolutely not. HE healed them. Since sin is the cause of all sickness then it’s impossible for Jesus to be infected with any sin becaue he is the healer of sin.

I believe the Father blessed Mary more than any other person. In Genesis the serpent is the devil who is the father of lies. His defeat is implied because of the contrast between the
head and the heal -in Genesis. Later in history the Son of God
appears so he would destroy the works of the devil. This is God’s
promise to save us! So the woman’s offspring is basically
Jesus.

100% correct. But the woman is not Mary. GOD did not wait until Mary existed to put enmity between the woman and her descendants. That would imply hostility between the serpent’s descendants and the woman’s descendants didn’t exist until 2000 years ago. The enmity was created immediately as we see in the book of Job, Chronicles etc. If hostility between the serpent’s descendants and the woman’s existed before Mary then Mary cannot be the woman.

All of us are aware of sinful flesh mentioned in the Bible.
However the Bible also states in John 1 vs. 14, “and the Word
became flesh.” Jesus did not receive a sinful flesh from Mary.
Catholics are correct in honoring Mary with the Dogma of
Immaculate Conception.

It’s impossible for Jesus to receive a sinful flesh from a sinful Mary. That’s the same as saying that GOD can inherit sin. IMPOSSIBLE!!!

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

But there is disagreemtn on the Trinity, the nature of the Eucharist, the number and nature of the Sacraments, what is necessary for salvation just to name a few. How do we reslove this? All claim to be led by the Spirit . Is the Spirit the author of confusion?

Estes how are you my brother? What disagreement is there on the Trinity? Tell me also what you think is necessary for salvation. Le’ts get some good dialogue going so we can learn from one another.

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

Do you actually think that ANY of us sin because we want to???

Do you?

Absolutely I do! People have passions, and choose to indulge their passions. Usually, they rationalize that it isnt’ really a sin, or it is not a bad sin, or that they can’t help it. They engage in the behavior because they want to, though.

I was just responding to the person who said that Mary would not have sinned because she knew Christ and would not have wanted to sin. If it were as easy as not sinning because we don’t want to it would be quite a better world!!!

Indeed it would! But it does begin by having our desires consistent with what God desires for us. If we did not have concupiscence, this would come a lot easier.

 

[steve_b]

With all due respect, and with no personal malice intended – this is utter non-sense. It’s the essential equivalent of determinism, and reeks of Calvinistic theology on predestination, even if singularly applied toward Mary.

IF she had not sinned or even been touched by sin then she needed not to be SAVED from anything. She then becomes self sufficient of our own inherent (that is, self) righteousness before God. As such she would invalidates the whole purpose for the incarnation and the virgin birth.

No Mary was not saved before she sinned, as that would be no salvation at all. She was saved because she, like all of us born of Adam, was a sinner and needed the sinlessness of Christ to atone and be the premise for her reconciliation with God.

1. 
   *]If you’re drowning and I throw you a life preserver and bring you to safety, I’ve saved you.
   *]If I keep you from falling overboard and drowning by grabbing your shirt as I see you begin to fall, I’ve also saved you before something bad happened.
   Both examples you’ve been saved from a bad outcome. If I could do that for YOU, think about what God does for His mother.